HFNC vs nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation: Mechanical ventilation within 72 hours of trial entry
Nasal high flow showed no clear difference in mechanical ventilation within 72 hours of trial entry compared with nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Nasal high flow vs nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation Mechanical ventilation within 72 hours of trial entry · preterm infants requiring primary respiratory support Nasal high flow showed no clear difference in mechanical ventilation within 72 hours of trial entry compared with nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (moderate certainty). Nasal high flow therapy for primary respiratory support in preterm infants (2023) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.91 [0.62, 1.33] | 4 studies · 343 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nasal high flow therapy for primary respiratory support in preterm infants 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.